Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Patrick Maxwell (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

G. Patrick Maxwell
This article has the same failings as the first time it was nominated for deletion. It looks more like a promotion for an individual plastic surgeon and academic than a legitimate Wikopedia article. If one looks at the cited awards, for example, there are dozens and dozens of doctors who have won those awards. The number of publications is not unusual for an academic at all. In fact, many academics have far more than these. It seems odd to highlight one doctor out of the hundreds and thousands that could be highlighted. If indeed this surgeon made an original independent contribution to the field, then I suggest that instead of a separate article, a footnote in the Plastic Surgery article would be more appropriate. MollyBloom 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as I don't see any proof he's more notable than other people in his field. Article was nominated for deletion before and kept on the grounds that his notable contributions to the field would be stated eplicitly, but there has been an absolute failure to clarify why he's deserving of an entry. GassyGuy 21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete for the reasons I stated when nominating.MollyBloom 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am amazed you didn't vote keep ;) Ian13/ talk 21:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete- I concur with GassyGuy.Gfwesq 21:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * keep: Dr. Maxwell is clearly a notable figure within the sphere of his specialty, a segment of the medical industry that has a profound impact on a growing clientele.  Ombudsman 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Move discussion and argument to talk pages.


 * Delete as per nom or Transwiki to WikiPlasticSurgery Bwithh 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete--I agree with Molly Bloom and Gassy you have no special reason to be here. Get rid of this ad period.. The PS is no better than anyone else, especially a PS who puts the wrong implants in woman. I just came across this ad he puts out a fake act if you ask me. BSBanshee1
 * Note: This comment was originally added by an anonymous IP edit InvictaHOG 11:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete- I concur with GassyGuy & Molly Bloom. I see no reason to include all surgeons that publish articles, especially one who has dubious ethics. JosephA 23:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: The above vote was the users first contribution to Wikipedia. Ian13/ talk 08:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: discussion moved to talk pages.


 * Delete - notability is based entirely on an unreferenced assertion that he is a recognized expert. Take that away, and he is a run-of-the-mill practicing physician who has only risen to the level of (non-tenured) assistant professorship. Actually, what may be most noteworthy about Dr. Maxwell is the fact that he seems to have egregiously violated laws requiring informed consent. Maybe every doctor who does this should be listed, but not in an encyclopedia. --Leifern 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Discussion and argument moved to talk pages.MollyBloom 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Looking through his bibliography and the role he's played in developing the field and training other plastic surgeons, I believe that he meets the criteria at WP:BIO for notability and that the article should be kept. InvictaHOG 03:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Discussion moved to discussion page.MollyBloom 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep : We've had this discussion before and the entry has been updated further since inclusion. Dr. Maxwell is a prominent international figure in the field who has been one of the most influential Plastic Surgeons of the last 25 years. He easily meets the wiki-Bio inclusion criteria for people in health science/academicsDroliver 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep :notable. My view is in NO way support for this person. We are writing an encyclopedia, not making moral judgements.Mccready 04:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, but explain why you think he is notable. Don't just tell us he is notable.Gfwesq 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Seriously, this person is no different than many many many other physicians.  Yeah he's written some papers.  We don't have every last person who's well-skilled at their profession.  There's a laundry list of publications by this person, but there's a laundry list by many other professionals too.  This person just seems to have been in this court case, but, again, so have so many others.  There seems to be some serious fans of this person.  Why do you want his article so bad? Please explain this somehow.  Until then, delete.  Kevin_b_er 08:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just another doctor. -- GWO


 * Delete for notability. See WP:N. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illinoiserocks (talk • contribs).


 * Keep as per InvictaHOG. There are plenty of less notable people on here.  Andrew73 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, publications and positions clearly establish notability. All this talk about legal problems really makes this AFD look like the tail wagging the dog. --Sneftel 17:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the lawsuit has nothing to do with the reason for this Rfd. Please read the reason above.  Maxwell's legal (and other) problems were discussed in the context of the existing Wiki article - NOT a reason for deleting the article itself.  The reason for deleting the article is amply explained above.   Wikopedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for a loving student to burnish the credentials of his mentor.  MollyBloom 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Strong keep. Midgley 20:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion is continued on the talk page due to incivility.


 * Strong delete per GassyGuy. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Long list of publications, excellent article with a fascinating paragraph on professional misconduct + article was previously nominated just two months ago and was an overwhelming Keep: Articles_for_deletion/G._Patrick_Maxwell. Maxwell clearly needs to stay and I wish all articles were this good. --JJay 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Gfwesq or I added the paragraph on professional misconduct, and Midgely and DrOliver have consistently vandalized it by stating it is irrelevant. Before, the article looked like a puff piece.  I still do not see this particular doctor more notable than many many others in his field.  This is a loving gift from a student attempting to burnish this doctor's credentials.  Nothing more.MollyBloom 04:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, excellent article and thanks for contributing. Add more info: it can only get better over time. --JJay 22:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, notability established by NY Times reference. T@lk  01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Question/Comment I can't convince myself that notability is established per WP:BIO. In attempting to follow up on this, I clicked on the NY Times reference.  This seems to violate WP:EL, "External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page."  The NY Times is referenced as "2005 cited in the New York Times as one of the United States top plastic surgeons who do breast implants []," but this is a PDF on another (non-Times) domain, which appears to violate NY Times copyright ???  I'm inclined to vote to delete as non-notable, but want to understand this issue as well.  Sandy 02:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyright status of the quote is of no relevance to my vote. I suggest you take this to the article's talkpage. JFW | T@lk  09:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete A zillion and a half references does not automatically make notability. --InShaneee 02:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, well referenced and apparently notable in his field. Silensor 07:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nom. and GassyGuy AvB ÷ talk  14:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved incivility and argument to 'talk pages'. Sigh.MollyBloom 04:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete It can be expected from any physician that he or she has had works published, and quite simply, this guy is no more notable than the next. Also, if writing an article about an insignificant person, it is imperrative that the article clearly states this, so the reader does not falsely believe him to be world-renowned or famous. Adambiswanger1 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per InShaneee.  If this is a notable physician, then Wiki's standards are too low, and every run-of-the-mill doctor can advertise on Wiki.  Many doctors are published, and that doesn't always amount to a hill of beans. I also hope someone who knows more about it than I do will look into the possible copyright violations on the article entry.  I looked at WP:Copyvio and it's Greek to me, but I've noted the issue on the talk page and deleted the link for the second time.  Sandy 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 05:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, this article has come a long way since it was nominated for deletion 3 months ago. The subject seems notable to me via WP:PROFTEST; he's got a lot of publications, and he's at a reputable school and has been active for a long time.  Concerns about neutrality are reasonable concerns, but not a reason to delete in this case: this topic CAN be covered neutrally, it's not so obscure as to render neutrality impossible.  Mango juice talk 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please this person is notable by the proftest Yuckfoo 20:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.